Merit. I have been thinking about it quite a lot recently. It is the favoured countenance to the merest mention of targets, quotas or any mechanism designed to actually accelerate the pace of change in the representation of women.
Promotions or appointments determined by anything other than “merit”, we are told, would be diabolical. It would be artificial. Unsuitable candidates would be given roles they are not adequately equipped for. They wouldn’t have the respect of their colleagues or their peers. Can you imagine the outcomes?
Decisions wouldn’t be widely consulted on and wouldn’t be as effective as possible. Companies wouldn’t be as profitable as possible. Strategies for creating and building the future would be impaired because we wouldn’t be drawing upon the entire talent pool. Oh, hang on! That’s what happens now. I’m confused.
Day after day, I am sent research of the empirical variety that confirms that more women in leadership positions create better results.
Let’s look at some headlines from recent weeks alone.
Women-led companies perform three times better than the S&P500
Companies run by women perform better
Study links gender diversity in Asia-Pacific boardrooms to better company performance
Fund companies investing in gender diversity
The evidence is persuasive. Increasing women’s representation is good for business, yet, we are told by those in business that we can’t be radical in bringing about change. We can’t expect a company to accelerate a change that, in all likelihood, will improve a company’s performance?
If that in itself isn’t a conclusive argument that our current classification of “merit” is deeply flawed I don’t know what is.
How exactly can a CEO of a listed company, or the board of a listed company, so brazenly disregard a proven strategy to boost their performance?
Upon what basis can any respected corporate executive explain that, despite the overwhelming evidence that gender diversity would increase a company’s performance, it’s not a path they need to prioritise?
Are there any listed companies in Australia that are doing so well that they can flagrantly disregard a chance to improve their bottom line, increase staff retention and develop a competitive advantage?
The case couldn’t be clearer. Increased representation of women is good business. Australia has a highly educated workforce of women whom remain vastly underrepresented in business.
And yet, it seems, the onus still sits with advocates on the outside to explain to companies why they should prioritise this. How is the onus not on companies to explain why they haven’t? Seriously?
Last week after reporting the dismal representation of women at the Financial Review’s upcoming Banking and Wealth Summit I believed we had garnered a small win. The editor in chief of the newspaper responded to the concerns we raised and the event’s image was changed to include 4 women out of 15, a notable improvement on the original which featured 10 men and no women.
That ‘victory’ faded quickly when I saw a glossy insert in the newspaper yesterday: fifteen men and just one woman. Whether it was printed before or after Michael Stutchbury wrote this and the image was changed last week, is entirely inconsequential. The message is the same: gender diversity is not a priority at this event.
If it was, yesterday’s brochure would have been deemed unsuitable before it was even printed. If it had already been printed and the response last week was sincere, why was it not changed? Because it’s not taken seriously.
And that raises a serious question. How can a newspaper, a corporate sponsor, an event organiser or any individual executive be considered fit to discuss the future of anything, when they are so willing to disregard what is a clear commercial imperative? I’m open to submissions on the point but I’d argue they’re not.